The collection of Essays simply titled Food: A Culinary History discusses a wide variety of societies, their diets, rituals, and traditions involving food or the act of eating.  One chapter that stood out to me was chapter seven, “Greek Meals: A Civic Ritual.”  Another chapter that seemed to set itself apart from the others was chapter nine, “The Diet of the Etruscans.”  Just from the titles it is clear that these chapters harbor some significant differences, particularly in the focus.  However, these chapters also have some similarities, that go beyond the content of the chapter.  The best way to compare these two excerpts is to examine their focus, structure, and the sources used to write them.

By far the biggest difference between chapters seven and nine are their focuses within the society in question.  Chapter seven discusses the Greeks, while chapter nine discusses their neighbors to the west, the Etruscans.  However, chapter seven is almost entirely focused on the rituals that involved food, particularly banquets, and their effect on the community.  This is known from the author’s thesis, “The Banquet marked a special moment in man’s relationship to the gods, in the relationship of Greek to non-Greek, and in the relationship of citizen to citizen within the Greek city-state” (90).  It is clearly stated that the author’s main purpose for the essay was to discuss the effect of banquets on all types of Greek relationships.  On the other hand, chapter nine is more focused on the specific diet of the Etruscans.  Although the author’s specific thesis is unclear, the focus can be gathered from the subsections of the chapter, which are titled “Cereals”, “Pulses”, “Olives”, “Animal Breeding and Hunting”, “Fishing”, and “Cooking and Banquets”.  As is evident from the headers, the author’s purpose in writing chapter nine was to give information on the specific types of food eaten by the Etruscans, as well as their means of preparation for that food.  Although the chapter does briefly touch on banquets in the Etruscan society, it is not nearly to the same extent as chapter seven.  The difference in content between these two chapters is by far more significant than the others, as proven by the authors’ theses and subsection titles.

Although the content of chapters seven and nine differ so greatly, the structures are surprisingly similar when examined closely.  As discussed previously, chapter nine is split into subsections primarily based off the type of food being analyzed.  The structure is very straight forward; each paragraph is simply a smaller section of the author’s main thesis.  Well, ignoring the content, it is evident that chapter seven also follows this structure. The subsections of this chapter are titled “Banquets of Mortals”, ““Banquets of Greeks”, and “Banquets of Citizens”.  Referring back to the thesis, the first section is geared towards the relationship between man and the gods, the second section discusses the relationship between Greeks and non-Greeks, and the third is about the relationship between Greeks and their community.  Again, the structure consists of paragraphs that break down the thesis into its smaller pieces.  Although this may seem like an insignificant connection between the two papers, it definitely gave them a similar feel while reading them.

The last major point of comparison between the two chapters is the sources used.  Much like the essays themselves, the sources for each were both similar and different.  Both chapters derived most of the information from books, in fact all of chapter seven’s sources were.  However, the author did mix in some historical books such as Aristotle’s Politics.  This adds some credibility to the chapter, and overall contributes quality information to the paper.  She uses Aristotle’s writing to provide the reader with a better idea of when shared meals began, around the time “when the Oenotrians abandoned the pastoral way of life and took up agriculture” (92). On the other hand, the author of chapter nine used many sources, fourteen to be exact, as opposed to the measly seven sources used for chapter seven.  This gives the author a much wider range of information, and different views on the Etruscan’s culture.  Overall, it adds credibility to the author’s statements, that is only rivaled by chapter seven’s historical source.

When it comes down to it, these chapters, although they shared a similar structure, were quite different in terms of content.  After reading them both thoroughly, I definitely felt that the author of chapter seven, Pauline Schmitt-Pantel stuck to her thesis much better than the author of chapter nine, Giuseppe Sassatelli.  Overall, this resulted in chapter seven being much more cohesive and easy to follow, as opposed to nine, which was confusing at times.  There is no question that Pantel did a much better job at getting her point across, which is the main reason I chose these two chapters for comparison.  They prove that two papers can have essentially the same structure and similar topics, yet diverge greatly when it comes to content, sources, and cohesiveness.

Abina and the Important Men, a graphic novel authored by Trevor R. Getz and Liz Clarke illuminates the true implications of British rule and influence in Africa.  Abina’s story reveals a great deal about British operations that took place behind closed doors, which is what sets it apart from the tales of other slaves during the European imperialist venture.  The European imperialist venture was a period of expansion for European countries, not on their own continent, but to faraway places such as the Americas, Asia, and Africa.  However, the goal of this venture was not only to create financial stimulation, but also to spread European culture.  Thus, the Civilizing Mission was born, which was the efforts to spread enlightened principles and Christianity to their territories in order to civilize and modernize them: a noble effort in theory, but not so effective in practice.  Abina’s story shows how deceiving the European imperialist venture was, by highlighting the true implications of the civilizing mission, the financial success of the British, and how both could not be achieved simultaneously.

The first major aspect of the European imperialist venture that Abina’s story sheds light on is the civilizing mission.  In short, the purpose of the civilizing mission was to impose British rule and customs on their colonies and territories, specifically the Gold Coast of Africa.  Their goal was to push new enlightened principles in Africa, and to abolish slavery entirely.  However, even after the British defeated the Asante Confederation who had ruled the land, the region was still largely influenced by local chiefdoms and landowners who would not so easily change their ways (5).  In these chiefdoms, labor was in short supply and was very costly due to the rapid expansion of the palm oil industry.  Prior to British interference, the slave trade ran rampant in Africa, and was what drove the gold industry.  Landowners saw no reason to change their ways or adopt British morals, instead they simply adapted their methods.  Slave traders began to import children into the colonies because they were “deemed less likely to run away or seek their liberation in British courts” (6).  Landowners utilized these child slaves to avoid British abolition laws, because no one thought they were defiant enough to bring it up in court.

Another way they avoided the abolition laws was by taking advantage of the British definition of a slave.  According to the British, a slave was someone who was exchanged for money, performed intense physical labor, was referred to as slave, was beaten, or worked too hard as a child.  The landowners were aware of these criteria, so they were very careful in how they treated their slaves so that it would not technically be considered slavery (19, 20).  Abina’s case is the perfect example of this.  Abina never saw money change hands because it was done in secrecy, she was never beaten, only threatened to be beaten, she was never to her knowledge referred to as slave, and she was paid in clothing rather than money.  Even though she was held against her will and forced to work, her treatment did not meet the criteria, and the court ultimately decided that she was not a slave (27-30).  Abina’s story clearly shows that she was a slave, which raises the question of Britain’s true motive behind the civilizing mission.  If they truly believed in abolition, and the rights guaranteed to everyone per the enlightenment, then why was her case dismissed?

The answer to that question lies within the second part of the European imperialist venture, the financial gains and stimulation caused by colonization.  Britain’s financial success in the Golden Coast relied almost entirely on the stability of the region.  This is because it was the African landowners who harvested, produced and transported the palm oil to the coast.  If the relationship between the British and these landowners were to deteriorate, it could hinder the success of the palm oil trade, or put an end to it entirely.   So, not wanting to upset their business partners, the British would often turn a blind eye to cases like Abina’s.  They knew that if they were to force the landowners to fully obey the laws of abolition, then it would undoubtedly cut into their profit margin and risk the entire operation.

Another factor that played into instability in the region was the lack of understanding of local customs and cultures, which Abina’s story clearly displays.  In her case, the judge, Mr. Melton, is completely unfamiliar of the practices of local people.  He does not understand how common slavery is in the Golden Coast, and simply believes what he is told by ‘important men’ like Quamina Eddoo: that Abina was not a slave, but more of an apprentice, or a daughter (19).  This lack of understanding of British diplomats allowed landowners and slave-owners to essentially do whatever they wanted without consequence, which would make it even more difficult to enforce British laws in the future.

Perhaps the most significant piece of the European imperialist venture that Abina’s story illuminates is its failure to work effectively with all its parts.  It is clear from Abina’s case that there is no way for the British to be successful financially while staying true to the civilizing mission: the nature of the Golden Coast simply does not allow it.  However, even though they both could not be simultaneously successful, the British created the image that they had done so.  To them, not understanding local culture was an extremely convenient excuse to turn a blind eye to slavery in the area without affecting their profits.  The British made it seem like they were actively pursuing abolition in Africa, when in reality they were advocating it by not prosecuting violators.  They were so worried about the money in their pockets, that they were willing to go against everything the civilizing mission stood for, and continued to deny rights to those who were wrongfully enslaved.  When it comes down to it, the British had to make a choice between money and morals and, unsurprisingly, money won.

The value of Abina’s story cannot be undervalued, because it revealed the true nature of Britain’s venture in Africa.  Without stories like hers, we may never have known just how deceptive the European imperialist venture truly was.  Abina’s case displays the sheer ineffectiveness and disregard for the civilizing mission in Africa, Britain’s ravenous hunger for financial success, and how they would forget everything they stand for to achieve it.  Her story uncovers the hypocrisy of the British, how they preach their enlightened principles and Christian values, yet they would go against them in a second if it would grant them a larger profit.  It is now clear that the European imperialist venture was not one of civilizing the world and modernization, rather it was one of money and greed.

Bibliography

Getz, Trevor R., and Liz Clarke. Abina and the important men: a graphic history. New York: Oxford U Press, 2016. Print.

The Life of Olaudah Equiano, also known as Gustavo Vasso, the African, is a very insightful novel, authored by Equiano himself.  It provides a first person perspective into the African slave trade, as well as the Atlantic slave trade.  The novel follows Equiano’s experiences with both of them and highlights their vast differences in labor and lifestyle.  Although Equiano’s experiences were far from standard, his story still offers the reader a rare look inside the life of a slave.  It is very clear that Equiano develops as a person as he is subjected to both styles of slave trade, which ultimately leads him to forge his plan to end the Atlantic slave trade and create a commercial bond between Africa and Britain.  However, there are some crucial assumptions Equiano makes that would prove his plan unsuccessful, most notably the lack of respect the English had for the human rights of Africans and their desire to turn a profit.

From the time of his kidnapping to the purchasing of his freedom, Equiano experiences a large variety of masters.  These varying styles of enslavement show the reader firsthand the extensive differences between the African slave trade and the Atlantic slave trade, which all stem from the variation in their values.  The valuing of humanity and human rights, without question, is the largest distinction between the African and Atlantic slave trades.  When it comes down to it, the Africans saw their slaves as people rather than property.  Their reasons for enslavement usually had some merit, and were justified.  African slaves were often prisoners of war, criminals, or debtors earning their way back into society.  African slaves were also treated with general respect and understanding.  Equiano tells of a time where he accidentally killed one of his master’s chickens. Rather than being harshly reprimanded, he was ordered by his master to be “…taken care of, and not ill-treated” (27).  Equiano’s master recognized the fear and regret that he felt, and decided not to punish him. Contrastingly, the Europeans had no problem enslaving people, even if they had done nothing wrong.  They viewed the Africans as sub-human, which becomes clear from the way slaves were treated.  Equiano recalls that on the ship, the slaves were chained below the deck, where the stench was suffocating, sometimes going days without fresh air.  He even tells of three slaves that jumped overboard, preferring death to slavery.  One of them was caught, and the Europeans “…flogged him unmercifully” (34). Equiano quickly learned that the Europeans would not let things slide, nor would they consider the slaves’ feelings as his African masters did.  To them, the well-being of the slaves was secondary to efficiency and making a pretty penny.  Another major difference between African and European slavery was the type of work being done.  Equiano recalls that he worked with one of his African masters, who would smith while Equiano worked the bellows (25).  In fact, it was common practice for slaves to work alongside their masters, doing jobs one wouldn’t necessarily relate to slavery.  This is vastly different from the work done by slaves in the Americas.  Rather than performing simple tasks, American slaves worked mostly within the realm of agriculture, tasked with back breaking jobs, and often working themselves to death.  The bottom line is, African owners had a certain level of respect for their slaves, and recognized them as human beings, while American slave owners considered them to be property, and cared not for their physical or mental well-being.

Once Equiano’s life as a slave had ended, he longed for nothing more than to end the despicable practice he knew as the Atlantic slave trade.  Using his past experiences, Equiano devised a plan to unite Africa and Britain, and drafted a petition to the Queen.  If passed, Equiano’s plan would outlaw the British slave trade in Africa entirely, and would create an almost symbiotic partnership between Britain and Africa.  Equiano claims that British manufacturers could greatly benefit from Africa’s abundance of natural resources, particularly the minerals and gems in the bowel, and agricultural yields and timber on the surface of the continent (179).  By purchasing these raw materials from Africa at low prices, manufacturers could then sell the finished product in African markets, turning a huge profit.  This would mutually benefit Britain’s domestic manufacturing and the African economy.  Equiano also hopes that introducing European values and Christianity to the African people will put an end to “tortures, murder, and every other imaginable barbarity and iniquity” (179) that are practiced upon the slaves.  Even more specifically, he wants to abolish torture devices like collars, chains, and hand cuffs that were commonly used in the slave trade.  Simply put, Equiano truly believes that by abolishing slavery, Europe and Africa will be able to heal the wounds of mistreatment by forming a commercial partnership.

There is no doubt that Equiano’s plan is well thought out, and it absolutely has its merits, but the proposal is also riddled with flaws.  He fails to see that humanity is not perfect, and certain human tendencies such as greed are bound to exist in a capitalistic society.  Equiano’s experiences with the African and Atlantic slave trades are undoubtedly the cause of these oversights, as his relationships with the Atlantic slave trade differed significantly from most others’ despite his harsh initial experiences.  Unlike a majority of slaves, Equiano was lucky enough to get purchased by a British trader, and spent very little time in the Americas at all.  He spent most of his life traveling throughout Europe and then India, slowly adopting European ideals and Christianity over time.  Equiano comes to believe that Europeans truly live by these ideals and Christian principles, which in reality are only practiced when it is convenient for their wallets.  Equiano fails to recognize the hypocrisy that has embedded itself into European practices.  They preach to love thy neighbor and believe in the equality of men, yet have no regard for the life of African of slaves.  His new life as an Englishman has almost blinded him from the monstrosities he had experienced aboard the slave ship, and as a result he simplified the problem entirely.  Equiano also failed to reference slavery in the Americas at all in his proposition.  While his plan does offer a potential fix to the ongoing kidnapping and transporting of slaves, it does nothing for those who have already been taken from their families.  When it comes down to it, Equiano’s plan makes the assumption that humans are perfect beings who practice what they preach, and only solves half of the problem.

It goes without saying that Equiano’s experiences within the different styles of slave trade molded him into a man of great faith, but also blinded him from the flaws in humanity.  Equiano’s vastly different endeavors as a slave in the African and Atlantic trades showed him firsthand the problems facing Africa, but also led to the critical oversights in his proposition to the Queen.  He sought to create a commercial relationship between the two continents without considering human tendencies and greed. When it’s all said and done, Equiano’s experiences highlight the hypocrisy practiced by the Europeans, and shed light on the shear complexity of the problem of slave trade in Africa and the Atlantic.

Bibliography

Olaudah Equiano, The Life of Olaudah Equiano: Gustavus Vassa, the African. New York: Dover Publications, Inc, 1999.

Since the beginning of time, man has lived off of food, but in more than a literal sense.  Every civilization has had its own set of customs and beliefs surrounding food.  The cultural significance of food goes as far back as man himself.  Although on the surface it may seem like the history of food is irrelevant to the bigger picture of ancient civilizations, it has quite a bit of scholarly value.  Through the history of food, we have learned much about social life, social hierarchy, religious beliefs and obviously, cooking in these civilizations.

When you really look into it, there is more to the history of food than the food itself.  We also know how it was eaten, who it was eaten with, when certain foods were eaten, what festivities could be surrounding the food, and more.  These all fall under the category of social life, and what we know about it through the history of food.  A great example of the social function of food are the banquets of early Mesopotamian society.  The Mesopotamians often held banquets to celebrate special occasions, or mark a significant event.  Banquets were always held to honor a wedding in Assyria in order to promote bonding between families.  Drinking from the same cup, and sharing salt “symbolized a bond between individuals”.  At the same time, refusing to share food could be taken as a hostile action, and was looked down upon.  According to Francis Johannes, “The sharing of food mattered more than the ingredients of the meal, since these were of the most basic sort” (33).  At the banquets, it was not the food that was the main focus, they were about coming together as a community, and making connections with one another.  At these banquets, people were able to bridge the gap between social classes, and celebrate the things they had in common.

The study of food in ancient civilizations gives us a great deal of insight into the social hierarchy and social class systems of those societies.  Just as some foods are more available to the privileged today, like caviar and truffles, many types of food were exclusively available to the royal and wealthy.  If we look at the different types of bread in medieval Europe, the distinction between the classes becomes apparent.  During that time, three different types of bread were popular: white bread, brown bread, and whole wheat bread.  The white bread was of the highest quality, made with premium grade white flour.  As you can imagine, this bread was “prized by people of privilege”, and only available to first class citizens.  The brown bread was of slightly lower quality, and widely available to the middle class, which included government officials, and “other with regular sources of income” such as merchants.  The whole wheat bread was bottom of the barrel, eaten only by peasants and other lower class citizens (281).  Observing these three breads, we can see that there was a clear social distinction between the classes, and that not all classes were treated equally within the medieval European society.  We see another example of this in thirteenth century Italy.  During that time, pasta was spreading throughout the country, appearing in Naples, Sicily, Genoa and other Ligurian cities.  Although pasta wasn’t quite as luxurious as the white bread, it was still “reserved for the tables of the wealthy” (283).  So, those who indulged in pasta on a regular basis were clearly of higher standing within society.  These examples show that simply studying the types of food people ate tells us about their standing in society, and allows us to infer how their class was treated and looked upon based on the quality of the food.

Just as each civilization had their own set of beliefs when it came to food, so did each religion.  Most religions had some sort of celebratory feast for certain holidays, and some religions even had restrictions on their everyday diet.  A distinct example of this is the Jewish society in medieval Europe.  Miguel-Ángel Motis Dolander wrote a very in depth piece on Jewish traditions during this time period.  He says “Food, its interdicts and exhortations, informed the daily life and special holy days and festivals of the Jews, revealing much about the cultural uniqueness of this embattled minority…”  (224).  According to Dolander, we have learned a great deal about Jews in the Middle Ages, simply from studying their food customs, most notably their holidays.  For most of their holidays, Jews eat special foods or combinations of foods to symbolize different things.  For example, during Rosh Hashanah, the Hebrews eat apples with honey, dates, pomegranates, nougat, leeks, and other vegetables to symbolize fertility.  On Yom Kippur, the Jews “observe rigorous fasting as a sign of expiation and reconciliation” (225).  They believe that fasting on this holy day will repent their sins for the previous year.  Aside from holiday traditions, the study of food also tells us about the basic moral values of Judaism.  Jews abide by heavy restrictions in the realm of food in their everyday life.  They saw it as morally wrong to eat certain animals, or certain parts of animals.  All blood had to be drained before any meat was eaten, because they believed that “blood is life” and that it contains the soul.  Jews also would not eat the suet or lard of sheep, cattle and birds because it would violate sacrificial laws, by consuming parts that were “destined for the altar” (230).  As is evident by the example of Judaism, food played an enormous role within religion.  Not only does it tell us about special occasions and holidays, but it also gives some insight into the core moral and ethical values of the religion.

Lastly, studying food in ancient civilizations tells us a great deal about the cooking processes and ingredients used during those times.  In ancient Europe, dishes tended to be very simple, mostly utilizing wheat or wheat ingredients, and various types of meats.  Foods tended to be very salty, which both gave them a better taste and helped to preserve them.  However, cane sugar was brought by the Arabs to the Mediterranean, and in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries a sugar craze spread across Europe (383).  At first it was used primarily as a medicine, but when people began to develop a taste for it, dishes sweetened with sugar became very popular.  On special occasions, desserts were even sculpted in sugar in England.  This sugar rush in Europe was very significant, because it caused sailors to take the plant with them to the New

World, where they planned to set up means of growing it, and manufacturing it into refined sugar (384).  This ultimately led to the making of American chocolate and in turn, the popularity of the cacao plant.  Sugar is a great example of how the use of ingredients spread between civilizations.  Studying ingredients like this allows us to trace the influence of certain societies on others, and learn the origins of popular foods such as chocolate.

Upon deeper inspection, it is abundantly clear that the history of food has a huge significance and a great deal of scholarly value.  Studying the foods of ancient civilizations tells us much more than what people ate, but also how it helped them to bond as a community, defined their social classes, about religious beliefs and moral values, and how certain ingredients came about and were utilized.  Even further, it can tell us about trade between civilizations, and how surges of a certain type of food in one society had an influence on others.

Works Cited

Sonnenfeld, Albert, Jean-Louis Flandrin, and Massimo Montanari. Food: A Culinary History. New York: Columbia UP, 1999. Print.

There is no question that our country is lacking when it comes to public education.  In 2009, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) reported that out of 34 countries, the United States ranked 14^th in reading, 17^th in science, and an abysmal 25^th in math, with scores dropping in the following years (Frye). The Common Core Standards Initiative, simply known as Common Core, hopes to resolve this issue.  Common Core is a set of standards for public education adopted by 45 states.  The main goal of Common Core is to create a level playing field for all students by implementing a common curriculum, and common standards for grades K-12.   Having gone through public school in Connecticut, a state that adopted Common Core in 2010, I witnessed the ineffectiveness of Common Core firsthand, and experienced the forced implementation of it into my school district.  Ultimately, Common Core is not the best solution to the education problems facing America because it is a ‘utopian’ solution, that holds all students to the same standard regardless of their upbringing, teachers’ abilities, district budgets and financial shortcomings, and because of its avid use of standardized testing as a means of measuring success.

The biggest issue that plagues the Common Core Standards Initiative is that it holds every student to the same standard.  The program does not account for natural learning ability, nor does it consider the family life and upbringing of students.  Common Core assumes that every student is naturally capable of achieving at a high standard, every student values their education, and every parent values their child’s education.  They believe that by changing the standards and curriculum, students who have no interest in school are going to suddenly start putting in the effort they could have been putting in all along.  The fact of the matter is, a student’s value of his or her education is derived from his or her upbringing, and how their parents view education, and it is a value that would not so easily be changed.

Stephen Donahue, a high school math teacher, from whom I took classes for three of my four years of high school, has spent more than two decades teaching in the Connecticut school systems.  He has been affected by Common Core in many ways, and has looked into the effect of family life on a student’s education. An email interview was conducted with Mr. Donahue, where he shared some insights he has picked up throughout his career.  On the topic of student ability, he started off by saying “…there are students that for various reasons do not do well in school. Maybe they are not as smart, maybe they are not as motivated, maybe their parents do not hold education as a valuable commodity.  I call these students learning resistant.”.  Donahue claims that these ‘learning resistant’ students do in fact exist, and will continue to exist whether Common Core is in place or not.  He claims that what makes these students ‘learning resistant’ is set deep within them, brought about by their upbringing or family life.  He says “…in the turbulent times of adolescence they are simply not buying what school is selling,” it’s all about “…what they are holding as important at that time in their lives.”.  He is making the claim that ‘learning resistant’ students simply do not hold education as important to them at this point in their lives, and for that reason they will not make a change in their effort once Common Core is in place.  This goes directly against a claim made by Kristopher Frye in his article “Can the Common Core Counter Educational Inequity? International Legal Lessons on Closing the Achievement Gap.”  In the article, Frye condemns the current philosophy of the American Education system, claiming that “…the United States acts in accordance with a belief that not all children can achieve at high levels.” He specifically mentions the idea that poorer areas “lack the capacity to achieve at high levels.”  Frye counters this by making the claim that every student does indeed have the potential to achieve high levels of education.  Donahue’s argument brings about the idea that although Frye may be correct in his belief that all children can achieve at a high level, it does not mean all children are willing to achieve at that level.  There is no question that there is untapped intellectual potential in our nation’s youth, but Donahue does not argue against that thought, nor is the country’s education system modeled against it.  Donahue’s claim is simply grounded in realism, while Frye’s is theoretical.

Donahue even takes it a step further, and discusses the parental role in a child’s educational success.  He claims that some of the ‘learning resistant’ students are the way they are because of their parents, particularly in low income areas.  He compares parents in the lower income districts to parents in wealthy districts.  The wealthy parents “…demand a level of results that the parents of poorer communities don’t seem to have time to care about. If you are a parent that is working two or three jobs just to make ends meet you are not as likely to be concerned about the local education system.”  He makes a valid point, that in general more financially stable parents have the time to worry about how their child is performing, while lower income parents tend to be more caught up in simply putting food on the table and paying bills.  They generally have less time to worry about their child’s education, which evidently has a direct effect on the child.

Much like their students, not all teachers are equally effective in their teaching, whether it be due to varying abilities, levels of effort, or available resources.  These factors all influence the students’ education experience, regardless of the curriculum.  This idea alone discredits the Common Core’s entire premise of giving every child the same classroom experience.  Donahue touched on this in his interview, saying “Like any profession there are good teachers and there are bad teachers. Sometimes the teachers are bad because they are new and do not have the skills yet to be good teachers, sometimes the teachers are bad because they have been teaching too long and have stopped caring about their craft.”  He makes the claim that regardless of Common Core’s intent to create a level playing field for students, there will always be good and bad teachers.  Again, Donahue’s beliefs here are grounded in reality, based on what he has seen during his time as an educator.

He mentions teachers that have been ‘in the game’ for too long, who don’t adapt their teaching methods.  Donahue credits this to the idea of tenure and holding a position of life regardless of performance.  These teachers have very high job security, and many of them do not feel the need to adapt their methods to the new Common Core system.  The changes these professors would be required to make are not insignificant, so it is no surprise that they are resistant.  In an article written by Joshua Kenna and William Russell III, titled “Implications of Common Core State Standards on the Social Studies”, they discuss some of the changes Common Core pushes for.  They say “…the new social studies standards are focused on skill acquisition and the cognitive processes of students,” and “…the new Common Core State Standards will require social studies teachers to update their current teaching practices from traditional methods, which are often “passive” in nature, to nontraditional methods, which more frequently create an “active” learning environment for students.”  Per the article, Common Core is attempting to provide students with a more active learning experience, moving away from lectures and fact-learning, and towards the acquisition of critical skills.  There is nothing wrong with this goal, in fact, it would certainly prepare students for the real world more effectively than social studies classes do now, teaching them important life skills such as literacy and critical thinking rather than facts they are going to forget within a year.  Again, the issue lays within the assumption that teachers who have been using a lecture setting for their entire careers are going to willingly change.

Even teachers who are not stuck in a ‘rut’ of sorts are not likely to adapt and stick with it, because it is not a small undertaking by any means.  Donahue’s colleague, Ryan Fitzsimmons describes Common Core as “…having good intent,” but also as “…a rigorous and bumpy road for teachers.”  He goes on to say “…it will take a few years before we begin to see a change in students.”  So, teachers are expected to make in some cases drastic changes to their teaching methods, all to work towards improvements that will not become apparent for multiple generations of students.  Even if they do make changes, how long are they supposed to wait before improvements are evident?  Common Core considers this shift a small price to pay for future success, but again, it is not realistic to ask so much from teachers with nothing for them in return.  They need to be provided some sort of compensation, which not all schools, even districts are capable of providing.

This gap in available resources between school districts is another contributing factor in Common Core’s failure to create a level playing field for all students.  Even with Common Core in place, more wealthy school districts are going to have more resources available to them, both inside and outside of the classroom.  Donahue discussed this gap in his interview.  He says, “In the state of Connecticut we have some of the richest and some of the most underfunded school districts in the country. In places like Greenwich and Darien where the budgets are essentially unlimited the students have the advantage of every perk that money can buy. They have the best equipment and learning tools as well as possibly the best educators. At least they have the best paid educators.”  This quote brings about two different aspects of this issue that are worth discussing further.

First is the enormous gap in the wealth of districts within each state, even one as small as Connecticut.  Since Common Core is state mandated, these low-income districts do not have the choice as to whether they are going to adopt the standards, even if they do not have the funds to properly implement them.  Common Core itself does not directly provide any financial benefits to states and in turn, districts that adopt it.  Instead, the federal government gives ‘incentive’ to states that choose to adopt Common Core.  However, this incentive is not necessarily money, rather it is the chance to get federal funding.  “States earn the equivalent of extra points in the competition for grants from Race to the Top, Obama’s signature education program, if they had adopted standards to prepare students for college and work. They didn’t have to adopt Common Core, but they were better positioned for federal money if they did.” (Kertscher).  Even if states like Connecticut were to get a federal grant, there is no guarantee that money will go to the struggling districts.  Chances are, they will be continued to be neglected by the state government as they have in the past, and thus those districts will continue to struggle.

Second, the endless resources of some districts are going to continue to give those districts an edge, regardless of what they are teaching in the classrooms.  As Donahue said, these districts “…have the advantage of every perk that money can buy.”  They have the newest technology, like smartboards and tablets, they have countless tutoring opportunities for students who are struggling, and just as many extracurricular activities to keep students involved in the school system and out of trouble.  On the other hand, some of the struggling districts cannot even afford to provide necessities for their students.  “Imagine a school district that had not paper or pencils for students to use. Think of what that would do to the motivation of the students.”  (Donahue).  How are students who barely have notebooks and pencils available to them supposed to be on a ‘level playing field’ with student who have smartboards, tablets, graphing calculators and tutors?  There comes a point where it does not matter what is being taught in the classrooms, because two different students from each of these districts are going to have a widely different classroom experience anyway.

The last, and possibly the largest issue facing Common Core is its utilization of standardized testing as a means of measuring success.  For years, there has been a debate over the effectiveness and accuracy of standardized testing.  Megan Map and Kristin Kennedy authored an article titled “A Review of Standardized Testing in Mathematics a Case Study Regarding the State of Connecticut” which sheds light on this issue.  According to the article, the United States spends approximately $1.7 billion on standardized testing each year.  With such high testing costs, some states have been forced to opt out of the Common Core assessment because they could not afford to administer it.  The affected schools that could not afford to conduct testing were those of extremely low income, which are supposed to be the ones benefitting most from Common Core.

Another issue concerning the test is that it is computer based.  This raises issues in the lower income school districts discussed earlier, where computers are not as widely available.  Taking the test could require the purchase of more computers, or even transportation to a local high school that could accommodate them.  Even in schools that have a sufficient number of computers, it can be difficult to accommodate the testing.  Fitzsimmons says “…in younger grades it is much more intrusive to find computer time and other challenges of testing multiple content areas.”  Another concern the article raises is unfamiliarity with computer testing in those same districts.  Students who are not used to an electronic format for a test may not perform optimally, causing their scores to be lower.  This would prove the test as an inaccurate way of judging the success of Common Core in these districts.

The second major concern with standardized testing addressed by the article is the amount of stress and anxiety it can instill in a student.  Map and Kennedy touch on the significance of the grade level that takes the Common Core test- eleventh grade.  This is possibly the worst time for the test to be administered in a student’s career because of the other standardized tests students take during that time.  In the eleventh grade, students are already preoccupied with ACT’s, SAT’s, and even AP testing.  The last thing they need is another test thrown onto the pile.  Since these students would already be so preoccupied with these other tests, they are not likely to be as prepared for the assessment as they should be, which would result in lower, less accurate test scores.

The last argument against standardized testing addresses the validity of the test results as a form of measuring success.  According to Common Core, the standardized test results are supposed to reflect directly upon the effectiveness of the teacher.  Over time, good teachers will consistently produce students who score above average on these tests.  While this may seem true at first glance, this philosophy ignores all the factors previously discussed.  It does not consider ‘learning resistant’ students, nor does it consider the resources that teacher had at hand.  Donahue says “So what will a test show about those students? It will show that they are not growing intellectually and therefore they must be a victim of bad teaching. While this can be true in some cases, the truth is that the teacher cannot always be held accountable for student achievement. Education is a two-way event. The best teachers in the world can only present material. The learning and the internalization of the material is the responsibility of the student. So, while the idea of the test is fundamentally good, you have to consider the mindset and the effort put out by the recipient of the instruction.”  He is making the argument that the teacher is not always to blame for poor test scores, and they should share the responsibility with the students.  Donahue goes further to say the best way to determine the success of a program such as Common Core is “through observation and discussion” rather than standardized testing.  At the end of the day, standardized tests only tell that there is a problem, but it does not give any information on the root of the problem, which has no way of leading to a solution.

Overall, there are simply too many variables for Common Core to be effective on a national level.  When considering everything discussed, it should be clear that Common Core has failed entirely in its mission to create a level playing field for students across the country.  In fact, it even failed to create a level playing field in each individual state.  The fact of the matter is, there will always be ‘learning resistant’ students, whether Common Core wants to acknowledge their existence or not, and there will always be teachers and schools that will resist the change until they are given some form of incentive.  The only way to create a level playing field for students is to focus on districts that can barely afford the necessities of running a school, and to bring them up to the same level as schools that are already performing well.  There is no sense in wasting resources on ‘fixing’ what is not broken.

Works Cited

Frye, Kristopher. “Can the Common Core Counter Educational Inequity? International Legal Lessons on Closing the Achievement Gap.” Indiana International & Comparative Law Review 25.3 (2015): 493-540. Academic Search Complete [EBSCO]. Web. 18 Mar. 2017.

Kendall, John S. Understanding Common Core State Standards. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 2011. Print.

Kenna, Joshua L., and William B. Russell, III. “Implications of Common Core State Standards on the Social Studies.” Clearing House 87.2 (2014): 75-82. Academic Search Complete [EBSCO]. Web. 18 Mar. 2017.

Kertscher, Tom. “Federal Government Required States to Adopt Common Core School Standards, Congressional Hopeful Says.” Politifact. Journal Sentinel, 25 July 2014. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.

Map, Megan, and Kristen Kennedy. “A Review of Standardized Testing in Mathematics A Case    Study Regarding the State of Connecticut.” Insights to a Changing World Journal 2016.1 (2016): 266-83. Academic Search Complete [EBSCO]. Web. 18 Mar. 2017.

My confidence in my writing skills was at an all-time high upon entering ERH 102.  I had just finished the first semester after breezing through ERH 101 with my lowest essay grade being an 85.  Little did I know things were about to change, and drastically.  One of the things I was most confident about in my writing was my voice.  Throughout ERH 101, I did my best to write as if I were speaking, because it struck a more personal tone with the reader.  My confidence was shattered when I got my first significant paper, “The Controversy Surrounding STEM”, back this semester and saw that I got a 70.  Upon rereading my paper, I discovered one of my biggest weaknesses, which was not knowing when to write in a more formal manner.  I also discovered that I did not make proper use of my sources when it came to researched papers.  My last major weakness coming into this semester was a lacking writing process, or in layman’s terms, procrastination.  Throughout this semester, I believe I have improved in these fields, as shown by my papers in ERH 102 and HI 104.

It is very interesting to me that one of my biggest weaknesses in my writing was the result of my biggest strength.  The problem ultimately surfaced due to the difference in tone required by the prompts between this semester and last.  In ERH 101, the prompts were mostly reflective and individualized, calling on personal experiences and beliefs.  These prompts are well suited with a very casual and laid back tone.  On the other hand, this semester the prompts are far more formal, and require research as evidence rather than personal experiences.  For the first essay, I failed to flip that switch from casual to formal, and it resulted in my worst grade on an essay to that point.  This issue appeared in my first history paper this semester as well.  My history professor is very minimalistic, and sees right through the fluff in an essay.  He prefers you get directly to the point, and loathes students who beat around the bush and turn in essay without any content or any thought put into them.  I learned that the hard way when my first paper came back with more red than black.  He had crossed out everything that made the essay personal to me, every instance where I had used my voice to augment an argument.  He crossed out phrases like “when it comes down to it”, “The bottom line is”, and words like “absolutely” and “certainly”.  One of his comments even said “we do not write as we speak” (COL Dowling).  After getting picked to pieces, it became clear that this failure to identify my audience had a negative effect on my ethos.  Someone who is reading a scholarly journal would likely not respect the presented arguments as much if the article- was casually written and the author was not refined in their language.  

These two papers had an impact on me, and since then I have been working to fix this issue.  Now I think more about what I am trying to say rather than how I am trying to say it.  It is less about sounding good and more about making a strong and concise argument.  This is definitely evident in my second history paper, which had far fewer corrections than the first, and thus fostered a much stronger argument.  Now, I read more into the prompts and determine just how formal or informal I should be.  I do this by identifying my audience and subject matter.  So, if an essay is meant to be about personal experiences, then a more personal tone would be expected by the reader.  On the other hand, a research paper that is grounded in fact should emphasize those facts, and a more professional form of language should be used.  The result has been much more sophisticated papers that are aimed at the appropriate audience.  This change has added to my ethos as a writer, because it allows the true content of the paper to do the talking rather than the fluff.  It shows that that the arguments being presented speak for themselves.

The second aspect of my writing that needed improvement at the start of the semester was my use of sources. This problem was painfully evident in “The Controversy Surrounding STEM”, as I only had one source which provided little to no information for my argument.  Essentially, my entire argument was based upon my own opinion and speculation rather than facts and logic.  I utilized pathos, using my voice to construct a persuasive argument, but there were no facts to verify any of my claims.  I relied almost solely on ethos and pathos, which is completely wrong for a researched paper.  One example of this is when I wrote “Mattis ran the most culturally aware Marine division, and one of the most successful” (The Controversy).  Nowhere in my source did it talk about General Mattis’s division, or General Mattis at all for that matter.  These were statements made by me that had no backing, they were essentially assumptions.  In fact, I did not use one direct quote throughout the entire paper, which is completely unacceptable for a topic that I am not an expert on.  

Since then, I have been working to use sources that provide more information, and construct my arguments based on that and not my own beliefs.  This is evident in both my exploratory essay, “Exploring Common Core as a Solution to America’s Education Problems”, and researched essay, “Common Core: A Perfect-World Solution”, on the validity of common core.  For these papers, I researched three peer-reviewed scholarly articles, one website, one book, and conducted an interview.  I compiled pertinent information from all these sources to construct each of my arguments.  However, that is not to say I did not input any of my own thought into it.  Since I chose a topic that I have a history with, there were instances where I was able to use my personal experiences to back up a claim made by one of the authors.  In doing this, I discovered the key to using sources: using pathos to support the arguments made by the sources rather than using the sources to support my own claims and arguments.  Especially in my researched essay, I did my best to minimize the amount of assumptions I made, and based all my arguments on my sources.  The only time I allowed myself to put in my own input was to support one of the author’s points.  As a result, I feel the arguments I made were much more sound in reason, and thus more powerful.

Without a doubt, my biggest weakness upon entering ERH 102 was my lack of a writing process.  In ERH 101, the prompts all seemed to be easy enough to be completed in one night, because they were mostly based on personal experience and required little to no thought.  This semester, however I was in for a rude awakening.  The first assignment seemed to follow this trend, it was a reflective piece on what we thought our greatest strengths and weaknesses were coming into the semester, titled “Developing as a Writer”.  Unfortunately, I assumed that this trend would continue throughout the rest of the semester, that I would be able to keep on putting little to no effort into my papers, and I paid for it dearly.  When the second paper, “The Controversy Surrounding Stem” came around, I waited until the night before to write it, and I quickly learned that I was going to have to change my habits.  The result was a paper that had almost no thought put into it, and the grade reflected it.

Luckily, the coursework of ERH 102 naturally guided me towards spreading my writing over one or two weeks.  For each essay, a rough draft was due a few classes before the date, and peer reviews had to be conducted as part of the grade.  This almost forced me to start thinking about the assignments ahead of time, and to get my ideas down so I wouldn’t be in a deadline-induced panic the night before.  A great example of this is the researched essay.  There were many checkpoints throughout the second half of the semester that guided me through researching the materials and writing the essay.  First was the proposition, which required me to begin looking into sources that I planned on using for the essay.  The proposition confirmed that my topic was worthy of a research paper, and gave me some background on the issue of Common Core.  Next came the annotated bibliography, which forced me to review three peer-reviewed journal articles, summarize them, and discuss their significance to my research topic and how I planned on using them in the final essay.  The last preparatory assignment before writing the researched essay was the exploratory essay.  The exploratory essay followed my progression of thought as I researched my articles, and helped me to make sense of what I was reading.  It also led me to my final standing on the topic, and helped me to construct the base of my arguments.  I started off the essay saying “The question that I am not yet able to answer is”, and ended it with “After reading these articles and carefully considering their arguments, I am leaning towards the side against Common Core.”  From there all I had to do was connect the dots for the researched essay, and it flowed onto the paper almost by itself.  All the heavy lifting had been done already, the pain that was usually associated with such an assignment was almost completely absent.  I believe it was this assignment in particular that helped me break my bad habits, and develop a writing process that works for me.

Looking back on the semester, I truly believe I have taken some serious steps towards becoming a great writer.  ERH 102 has helped me to refine my voice through more formal assignments, make better use of my sources in structuring my arguments, and most importantly, it taught me to spread my work out using checkpoints rather than doing it all in one night.  When looking back on these three problems as they relate to each other, it is clear to me that prior to this semester, I was an unrefined writer in general, likely due to my abbreviated writing process.  Since I was rushing to get the papers done at the last minute, I did not have as much time to produce legitimate content, so I used my voice to fill in the gaps.  It created papers with unwarranted relaxed tones and improperly used sources.  Now that I have developed a more in depth writing process, I have more time to conduct research, and more time to put thought into my papers.

Works Cited

Raciti, Andrew. “Common Core: A Perfect-World Solution.” VMI 17 April 2017. Print.

Raciti, Andrew. “Developing as a Writer.” VMI 27 January 2017. Print

Raciti, Andrew. “Exploring Common Core as a Solution to America’s Education Problems.” VMI 24 March 2017. Print

Raciti, Andrew. “The Controversy Surrounding STEM.” VMI 14 February 2017. Print

In such a technologically advanced world, it is no surprise that STEM degrees are looked highly upon when it comes to higher education.  In the past, most degrees were seen as equal, math and physics just as valuable as history or English.  However, today that is certainly not the case.  STEM degrees, standing for science, technology, engineering and math, are much more accepted than those of history or English.  Even in the military, there is a bias towards the technical fields.  As someone who is currently majoring in mechanical engineering, I can personally say that I’ve seen this divide, and don’t necessarily agree with it.  The question I pose; is STEM being overvalued?  More importantly, are the humanities being forgotten?  In order to be sure, the true value of STEM degrees must be evaluated, along with the importance of the humanities.

There is no question that STEM programs are absolutely crucial to the development of the modern world, but to what extent should we focus on them?  Every year these fields become more competitive, and seem to be pushed onto students by society more and more.  In fact, even the United States military shows a bias towards the STEM and technical fields.  With a quick check of the NROTC website, you can see that they are very open about offering scholarships to students in technical fields over academic fields.  They even have a tier system for their scholarship program.  Tier one, the most preferred majors, consists of chemical, electrical and mechanical engineering.  Tier two includes civil engineering, applied mathematics, physics and essentially any other STEM degree.  Lastly, tier three, the least desirable, merely says “all other academic majors”.  Falling into this category are international studies, history, English, criminal justice and even languages.  It seems counter intuitive for an organization that deals primarily with foreign nations to have so little value for their languages and culture.  Though that is not to say that these are the only things that matter.  A basic understanding of technology and physics can go a very long way, especially in the Navy.  For example, in order to be a nuclear officer you must pass two 26week long courses that teach you how to build and operate a nuclear reactor.  For obvious reasons, a STEM degree would be advantageous to have in this case.  On the other hand, it doesn’t take an astro-physicist or a nuclear engineer to be a surface warfare officer (SWO), which is one of the most common jobs for an officer in the Navy.  The main jobs of a SWO are to run the com (steer the ship), and assist the officer of the deck (OD).  So, in this case it would not make sense to give those with technical backgrounds such a huge leg up.  Without a doubt, the Navy needs to look into their scholarship programs and give non-STEM majors a chance where it makes sense.

Another questionable practice is the valuing of technical knowledge over management skills and leadership abilities.  It is too common for engineering firms in particular to hire managers solely based upon their abilities as an engineer.  Although it would be advantageous for them to have some sort of background in engineering, management skills are far more important than know how when it comes to managing.  That may sound obvious, but it is a concept that many fail to realize.  Being able to lead people effectively is a skill that is undervalued in industry for this exact reason.  Surprisingly, this trend also surfaces within the Navy.  By limiting themselves to candidates within technical fields, the Navy loses out on potentially great leaders, simply because they chose the wrong major, or had different interests.  Simply put, if we overlook someone just because of their lack of technical knowledge, we could be missing out on their other strengths entirely.

Not only are STEM degrees overvalued, humanities are not getting the credit they deserve.  Students who decide to major in history, English or even foreign languages tend to be looked down upon in industry and especially in the military.  It seems impossible today to land a job in a technical field, even if the job description has nothing to do with the technology, and it requires no technical knowledge.  This can be credited to the undervaluing of humanities, particularly one skill they teach: communication.  Although most STEM programs have some form of mandatory writing class in addition to a core requirement, communication is still not emphasized nearly as much as in other fields.  This is apparent in the military, because often times it is those who have a background in history and English that make effective leaders, particularly when they are in country.  A great example of this is Secretary of Defense General James Mattis.  Gen. Mattis graduated from Central Washington University with a degree in history.  During his time in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gen. Mattis used his knowledge of the history and culture of the region to make critical decisions.  Gen. Mattis saw just how much this knowledge had been helping him, and he even ordered his men to further educate themselves on the history of Iraq and Afghanistan.  As a result, Mattis ran the most culturally aware Marine division, and one of the most successful.

Even though the world is shifting towards a more technology based society, the push of STEM fields is growing much faster, leaving the studying of humanities in the dust.  Unfortunately, this also encompasses the skills that come with it.  The bias towards technical fields is becoming out of hand, and has ultimately led to the great overvaluing of STEM degrees.  In addition, knowledge of history is being overlooked, and the importance of communication is seemingly all but forgotten.  If this trend is not corrected, great leaders such as General Mattis may never have the chance to be great.

Since starting at VMI, my writing has seen quite a significant amount of improvement.  However, there is still much more I can improve upon moving forward.  The writing process is very complex, split into countless phases and sections.  Every writer, professional, amateur, even student does it differently, and each have their own opinions on how it should be done.  In the past, before coming to VMI, I harbored some very minimalistic strategies when it came to my writing process.  Although my opinions on writing were mostly negative, ERH 101 improved my skills quite a bit, and have developed what I consider to be my successes when it comes to writing.  That being said, there are still quite a few things I need to work on, which I hope to resolve in the coming semester.

Before coming to VMI, my writing process ended where most other’s began; at the first draft.  Only on rare occasions would I attempt to revise my essays past their coarse, unrefined original state.  However, ERH 101 taught me the value of rereading my papers, and to look past the surface of my writing.  That class helped me realize what I consider to be my strengths as a writer: voice, cohesiveness, and structure.  Throughout my educational career, this past semester in particular, I have found that my strongest asset as a writer is my voice and the flow of my papers.  This strength likely comes from my initial writing process, which would explain why it was also evident even in my high school years.  When writing the first draft of a paper, I tend to take it very slowly and put a lot of thought into both what I want to say and how I want to say it.  I would try to make my papers strike the reader as more of a conversation rather than a lecture.  This helps to keep the reader engaged, while also ensuring a proper flow within the piece.  Another strength of mine is cohesion.  If there’s one thing I hate about reading other people’s work, it is struggling to tie their ideas together.  In my opinion, it is the author’s job to make the connections between their arguments clear, the reader should not have to do all the work.  For this reason, I pay particular attention to my paragraphs when writing a paper, and make sure that it is evident how one has to do with the other.  The last major strength I have as a writer is structure.  Since I used to exclusively write one draft pieces, planning plays a huge role in my writing process.  Before I even start writing, I always think ahead about how I am going to break up my paragraphs, and what the focus of each one will be.  This ensures the progression of the essay is logical, and gives the paper a more refined feel even if it is only one draft.

On the contrary, the most significant weaknesses and concerns I have coming into this semester are without question my revising abilities, comma usage, and lack of motivation.  Although my revising abilities have been vastly improved, they are nowhere near where they could be.  I still find myself focusing on exterior blemishes rather than content when editing my papers.  I have a bad habit of correcting grammar and spelling mistakes rather than picking out ideas or topics to elaborate on, or finding new ways to support an argument.  Another, more insignificant aspect of my writing I hope to improve upon this semester is my comma usage.  No matter how hard I try, I always seem to use far too many commas in my papers.  It is likely that this is caused by a combination of having too much to say, and not being familiar with the rules of punctuation.  However, this is a much easier problem to fix than revising technique and certainly much easier than my last major weakness, which is a lack of motivation or, if I’m being honest, procrastination.  Too often I find myself waiting until the last minute to get my papers done.  Even when I set deadlines for myself, I always seem to cut it much too close.  Not only does this terrible habit limit the amount of reflection that can be done after writing the piece, it also cuts heavily into editing time.  Without question procrastination and lack of motivation are responsible for my high school essays never reaching a second draft.  If there is one thing I hope to change this semester, it is this awful habit.

There is no doubt that my writing has improved a great deal throughout my time here at VMI, but it is very clear that I still have a lot to work on.  I have refined my ability to give my papers a personal touch, and made some large steps towards creating a revising strategy that surpasses a single draft, but I still have yet to perfect my editing skills, use of commas and bad habits.  I definitely have my work cut out for me this semester.

Ever since I got my first Xbox in the sixth grade, I’ve been into video games.  I mostly played more casual, cut and dry games like Call of Duty or Halo.  At least I did until August of 2013, when my good friend Mark introduced me to this game he discovered called “DotA 2”, short for “Defense of the Ancients”.  Little did I know I was about to be tossed into a realm of confusion, frustration and eventually, satisfaction.  DotA 2 is without question the most complex discourse community I can think of.  Not only does it have endless amounts of lexis, genres, and skill levels, it is also nestled within a much larger discourse community, that of competitive gaming, and gaming as a whole.

Before understanding the complex layers of the discourse community that is DotA 2, one must first understand the basic principles of the game.  The game is played in matches, where two teams of five face off to destroy the other team’s base or ‘ancient’.  Each player picks a ‘hero’ from a pool of 112 to take control of for the match.  Each hero has different abilities, and ultimately suit different play styles when utilized properly.  The map, or playing field is split into two sides divided by a river: one side for the Radiant and the other for the Dire, the names of the opposing teams.  Three lanes – top, middle, and bottom – lead from the ancient of one team to the ancient of the other.   At the start of the game, the players decide which lane is best for their hero, and split up accordingly.  They follow their lane until they reach the river, where they will undoubtedly encounter their enemy, who they will fight for control of the lane.  The players do not go without assistance, however.  An army of computer-controlled ‘creeps’ spawn in each lane every 30 seconds to help fight against the enemy heroes, and creeps.  Early in the game, players kill as many enemy creeps as they can, which earns them gold, the main currency in the game.  If they successfully kill more creeps than the opposing hero, they will accumulate more gold, and be able to buy better items.  Items are purchasable with the gold, and make your hero stronger in different ways.  Much like the hero pool, the item pool is quite massive, with 150 to choose from.  And, as you can imagine, different items are better suited for different heroes.  This constant cycle of killing creeps for gold and fighting for lane dominance continues for roughly the first 15 minutes of the game, until heroes are strong enough to fight each other.  After this initial phase, players tend to quit worrying about the creeps, and focus on killing the enemy heroes.  At this point, players employ heavy strategy, and brilliant tactics to ultimately push the enemy team back into their base, and destroy their ancient.

After reading that, I’m sure you’re already overwhelmed with the lexis, and sheer amount of information that is required to play the game even at the most basic of levels.  Truth be told, the description I gave is more in depth than the game tutorials, which really only shows you how to move your character, and how to use your items.  It took me days, even weeks, before I remotely had a clue what was going on.  I resorted to watching YouTube videos to speed up the learning curve as much as possible.  After close to three months of frustration and ass-whoopings, things began to look up.  I had pretty much learned all of the heroes, their abilities, and most of the items.  I was familiar with the functions of the game, and had begun to discover my play style.  It wasn’t until this point that I actually felt like I was a member of the DotA 2 community. Unlike most other discourse communities, initiation into the DotA 2 community requires a large amount of literacy within the community.  There’s no guaranteed way to join, it kind of just happens over time.

My most distinct memory of learning how to play DotA was without a doubt meeting two new online friends that have stuck with me, even while away at school.  I had probably been playing the game for about a month, and by then I was used to the fairly toxic community that surrounded the ‘noobs’, or new players.  While in a match, you have two options to communicate with your team: voice chat and text chat.  When in low skill level games, the amount of cussing, insults, and blame that passes through these mediums of communication is just uncanny.  However, these two were different.  Their online alias’s, which is how we refer to each other, are ‘Force Tree’, or Force, and ‘I’m Ragies’, or simply Ragies.  I could tell from the start that they had a lot more experience with me, but unlike the others they were supportive, and gave me tips on how to earn gold quickly, and how to properly position myself during skirmishes.  Our personalities meshed really well, and we were having a ton of fun so we just kept on playing together.  At first we lost almost every game, getting completely demolished most of the time.  But honestly, that didn’t matter to us, we were still having a blast.  As time passed, we began to learn each other’s play styles and habits, and we finally were to winning.  The three of us started taking the game more seriously, so we decided to get a team started.  For about a year we were competing in amateur events, and tournaments, our goal to make a name for ourselves, and achieve high standing within the community.  However, between school, work, and personal lives, we never had enough time to reach that level.  Even though we didn’t make it into the semi-pro scene, we still had crazy amounts of fun trying, and the bond we built was priceless.  Even if we never play DotA together again, the three of us will be friends for a long, long time.

As you would expect for a discourse community as deep as DotA 2, there is absolutely no shortage of genres.  I said before that a major player in my learning of the game was YouTube.  I watched all kinds of videos, whether they be basic guides or simply games of high skilled players.  Although it is not your typical text based-genre, YouTube is definitely a big one in the DotA 2 community.  Many aspiring players watch countless videos, that can teach them anything from advanced techniques like the proper way ambush or ‘gank’ someone, to the basic aspects of ‘farming’ or making money.  Another genre that I most certainly utilized is the in-game library.  The library contains descriptions for every item and every hero in the game.  For heroes, it describes each one of their moves, complete with statistics and even some lore.  For items, it tells about the origin of the item, but more importantly what it actually does for you when bought.  This genre, much like the videos, walked me through the beginning stages of learning the game.  However, unlike YouTube, the library is not nearly as geared towards experienced players.  The last main genre for Dota 2 are the third-party guides.  These guides can be found on forums like Reddit, or Steam, and can tell you anything you need to know about the game.  I mostly utilize these when I play a hero that I’m not comfortable with.  They tell you which abilities to use and when, what items to buy, and how the hero should be played in general.  The best part about the guides is they have a range in skill level.  So as you move up in the ranks, they are still relevant to your level of play.  Although it is impossible to name all the genres of the DotA 2 community, it is safe to say that YouTube, the in-game library, and third-party guides are the most prominent three.

Although there are 112 heroes currently in the game, they are not all played equally.  In fact, the hero “Pudge” has been played over 100,000,000 more times than any other hero in the game.  This is understandable because in my opinion, he is one of the most fun, and interesting heroes in the game.  His background tells the story of a butcher gone rogue, who dismembers bodies on the battlefield to feed the crows.  However, “while he always had a taste for the butchery, over the ages, Pudge has developed a taste for its byproduct as well. Starting with a gobbet of muscle here, a sip of blood there…before long he was thrusting his jaws deep into the toughest of torsos, like a dog gnawing at rags.”  This is how the in-game library describes his descent into madness.  But what makes Pudge so fun to play are his abilities, primarily the “Meat Hook”.  This skill allows the player to hurl Pudge’s massive hook, attaching to the first thing it touches – whether it be a creep or hero – and pulling is to Pudge.  As you can imagine, this skill makes the game very interesting, because Pudge is able to pull enemy heroes to their inevitable demise without them knowing what hit them.  For this reason, Pudge is known as a ‘ganker’ because he is the master of surprise attacks.  Pudge’s second ability creates a toxic cloud around him, damaging himself and any unlucky enemy stuck within the vicinity of him.  This skill is appropriately named “Rot”.  His last skill, “Dismember”, stuns the enemy he uses it on for about five seconds, and does massive amounts of damage.  These three skills are incredibly effective when used together.  The basic combo starts with a hook on an enemy hero, who gets pulled into Pudge, then the activation of Rot starts dealing damage to the enemy, and Pudge casts Dismember, trapping the enemy within the Rot cloud, while also dealing that massive damage.  For obvious reasons, Pudge is the most played hero in DotA 2, and he makes matches very interesting to both watch and play.

DotA 2 as a discourse community is infinitely massive, I mean the name itself is an example of lexis.  Between its grueling initiation process, never-ending list of specialized vocabulary, and a comparable amount of genres, there is just no way to cover it all.  Not to mention the hundreds, to even thousands of hours of playtime it takes to be respected by the community. When it comes down to it, DotA players speak an entirely different language, and have massive amounts of knowledge in strategy and tactics that really doesn’t apply anywhere else, to include 112 heroes, each with at least 4 abilities and a different playing style, and 150 items. But even further, the game creates the opportunity to create lifelong friends, and is rich in interesting background.  If that’s not the definition of a discourse community, then I don’t know what is.

If you were to ask an accomplished author of any sort what their writing process is, they would undoubtedly provide you with a long list of steps, beginning with the initial rough draft, countless revisions in between, and concluding with minor fixes of anything from syntax to grammar.  This might come as a surprise to most, as people tend to assume that writing flows naturally for authors.  If this same question was asked to a high school or college student, 80% of them would likely have completely different answers.  These students whip up a draft, glance over it quickly, maybe make one or two minor adjustments, then send it off for grading.  I am not ashamed to admit that I am a part of that 80%.  Throughout the entirety of high school, and probably even school in general, I was a one-draft writer.  It did not matter how the paper was weighted; it could be a project, lab report, research paper, anything.  One draft was all I ever produced.  The best example of this without a doubt is my final research paper for a science fiction class during my senior year of high school.  There is no question in my mind that this paper simply titled “The Forever War” is the quintessence of my poor writing habits.

The first step to understanding my thought process while writing the paper is to understand the teacher, Mr. Duncan.  This man was absolutely the biggest influence on my writing of this paper.  Mr. Duncan was one of those classic, super enthusiastic, yet completely out of touch teachers who thought he knew what students found interesting but in reality had no clue.  He’s the type of teacher to chuckle at his own jokes while the class watched in an awkward silence.  Sometimes he would go off on rants that nobody understood, and were completely irrelevant to the topic of discussion.  Most of the time, we didn’t even know what triggered them.  There were times where Mr. Duncan would ramble on about anything that crossed his mind, and no actual work would get done for the entire 80-minute class period.  You’d think such a unique personality would have an unmeasurable impact on the actual assignment, but the fact of the matter is, he had almost none.  The task assigned to us was so broad, and he was so easy going, that the topic was wide open.  The actual assignment was an essay that had to outline the major ideas in a science fiction book of our choosing.  Since everyone had a different book, and a different sub-genre to work with, he gave essentially no further guidance.  As a result, the final products varied greatly.  So, I guess in a way, he influenced me to think uniquely about my topic, just as he does on a regular basis.

As a writer, I’ve always performed better when the guidelines for the assignment were clearly laid out.  I’ve never been great at carving my own path through the confusion that is a research paper, and this one was absolutely no exception.  My book was “The Forever War” written by Joe Haldeman.  Honestly, if you asked me what the book was about, I would most likely just describe the events themselves rather than the main ideas, or the issues Haldeman was trying to portray.  It is for that exact reason this essay gave me such a hard time.  Essentially, the novel is about an intellectually and physically gifted man, William Mandella.  Mandella and other equally gifted men and women are recruited to fight in an ongoing war, as the title would suggest, between the humans and an alien race called the Taurans.  The novel touches on many ideas that parallel to society today, such as military training, physics, and Haldeman’s analysis of human nature.  In my essay, I wrote about these topics, dedicating about a page to each.  For military training, I talked about the rudimentary drill these high-caliber recruits were undergoing, and compared it to the Marine Corp’s OCS, or Officer Candidacy School.  The next idea, physics, led me to touch on the heavy use of time dilation, and how it seemed to be, to my understanding, accurate.  The last major theme was, again, Haldeman’s view on human nature.  For this theme I talked about the structure of the war, and how it reflected world war II and other wars of that era. The essay also discussed man’s dependence on war, and the repetition of the same mistakes.  Without a doubt, the hardest part for me was finding these themes.  Once I picked them out, however, the structure for my essay had been created, and all I had left to do was put the pieces together.

Before I even started writing, I forced myself to look back through the novel, trying to pick out certain pieces that would support a possible theme.  Eventually I found the three topics, but I didn’t know too much about them.  So, I conducted a good deal of research, reading many stories about OCS, USMC training procedures, and time dilation.  I even found a quote from Dwight D. Eisenhower, who said “Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology — global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration.”  I remember being utterly enthusiastic when I discovered it, because the words blended perfectly with my third idea, and with the essay as a whole.  Because of all this, it was a very long time before I even got words down on paper, which is pretty common for me as a writer.  I didn’t even start typing it until about a day before the deadline, which was, again, not unusual.  I always say that I write better when I’m in a deadline induced panic, but that’s just a fancy excuse for my constant procrastination.  Once I did finally begin writing it, the words just flowed out of me, and the ideas pieced themselves together as I typed.  I knocked out one major theme after another, then began comparing their portrayal in the fictional society to today’s society, and all of a sudden there were almost five pages in front of me.  I blasted through the physics section, because it interested me most, making it the most descriptive and structured.  I even discussed formulas, and theoretical concepts.  This, however, was both good and bad.  Good because it added credibility, and legitimacy to the paper, and bad because it affected the form of the essay, and made some of the other topics seem under developed.  Reading the essay now, it is very clear that I put the most effort into this section.  This definitely hurt me in the long run, and I should have put the same passion into the other two themes.  After completing the main bulk of the writing, all that was left was the conclusion.  I had no idea how to go about it, so I decided to reread the entire essay to that point, and used that insight to put together a cohesive conclusion that would hopefully tie up any loose ends.  As sad as it may sound, this is probably the most sophisticated writing technique I used while writing this essay.

An actual author might approve of my writing process up until this point, however they would undoubtedly call it a ‘good start’ rather than a ‘finished product’.  This is where my writing process differs from a legitimate author. I have to admit, looking back I cannot condone my actions, but all I did to better my essay after finishing the first draft was a quick scan for the red or green squiggly lines that would indicate a spelling error or a grammatical mistake.  At no point did I print it out, read it out loud, make actual revisions to the theme, structure, voice, or anything of the sort.  As I said before, I am a one-draft writer, and this paper, regardless of its importance was not immune.  There are many reasons to why this paper never reached revision, lack of motivation, procrastination, lack of structure of the assignment, senioritis, but most of it can be blamed on bad habits.  I can’t say this is the only time I’ve handed in a big assignment without revising, and I’m sure it will not be the last.  For this paper especially, no matter how many times I told myself I was going to spread the work out, or make revisions, I always knew in the back of my mind what was going to happen, and I was completely right.

After reflecting on my process of writing this very crude essay, I’m shocked I got as good a grade as I did.  That seems to be a common occurrence, though, and most likely allowed the for the development of my poor writing habits in the first place.  In any case, it should be abundantly that just because my writing process brought about good grades doesn’t make it effective.  Although I did have some strong techniques, such as rereading the essay in order to make the conclusion cohesive, and conducting research and planning before writing, I would still say my process has room for improvement.  When it comes down to it, being a one-draft writer is unnecessarily stressful, risky, and flat out shows that you do not take pride in your work, and you should not make it a regular practice.